Interoperability Analysis of Ifc-Based Data Exchange Between Heterogeneous Bim Software

Abstract

Traditionally, the one-to-one interaction between heterogeneous software has become the most commonly used method for multi-disciplinary collaboration in building projects, resulting in numerous data interfaces, different data formats, and inefficient collaboration. As the prevalence of Building Information Modeling (BIM) increases in building projects, it is expected that the exchange of Industry Foundation Classes (IFC)-based data can smoothly take place between heterogeneous BIM software. However, interoperability issues frequently occur during bidirectional data exchanges using IFC. Hence, a data interoperability experiment, including architectural, structural and MEP models from a practical project, was conducted to analyze these issues in the process of data import and re-export between heterogeneous software. According to the results, the fundamental causes of interoperability issues can be concluded as follows: (a) software tools cannot well interpret several objects belonging to other disciplines due to the difference in domain knowledge; (b) software tools have diverse methods to represent the same geometry, properties and relations, leading to inconsistent model data. Furthermore, this paper presents a suggested method for improving the existing bidirectional data sharing and exchange: BIM software tools export models using IFC format, and these IFC models are imported into a common IFC-based BIM platform for data interoperability.

BIM‐Anwendungsfall (AwF) Abrechnung‐Vortrieb am Beispiel des Zentrums am Berg

“…Bidirectional data exchange based on IFC using the usual software tools of the AEC industry does not however run without problems. This emphasises the necessity of continuous further development to improve interdisciplinary collaboration on underground infrastructure [8].…”

A meta-model approach for formal specification and consistent management of multi-LOD building models

“…With the increasing specialization of the stakeholders, the building industry requires a high level of interoperability, which is deficient. The US national institute of standards and technology [36] as well as many researchers and case-studies [37,38,39] [42] and UniClass [43], which are widely adopted for structuring the building information. Each object in the dictionary is identified by a Globally Unique ID (GUID) which makes it computer-readable and independent from the object name and language [44].…”

Classifying IFC Entities by Their Relative Importance for Accurate Interoperability Measurement

“…Data exchange between those BIM software tools is crucial for collaboration between various disciplines in Architectural, Engineering, Construction, and Facility Management (AEC-FM) industries. Industry Foundation Classes (IFC) were introduced for this purpose and have become the de-facto standard for data exchange between various BIM software tools (Lai and Deng, 2018). The IFC data model has several hundred entities and thousands of attributes, relationships, quantity and property sets that can represent various aspects of a construction project.…”

“…The evolution of IFC into an increasingly complex schema has negatively impacted the ability of the BIM tool's translator systems to correctly handle IFC data, which is a crucial aspect of the maturity of the BIM marketplace and the confidence of the industry to work with IFC data models (Amor et al, 2007;Amor, 2015). Exchanging data between BIM software tools and the IFC data model is a highly complex process as the translators cannot have a one-to-one mapping between the software tool's native data format and the IFC schema; and also in many cases, there can be multiple possible mappings for the same elements between native and IFC schemas (Lai and Deng, 2018). Hence, it is challenging for software vendors to develop and maintain translators that can accurately handle the IFC data.…”

“…Hence, it is challenging for software vendors to develop and maintain translators that can accurately handle the IFC data. Many studies since the mid-2000s have pointed out translation errors that have caused data loss and misinterpretation of intent (Amor and Ma, 2006;Lai and Deng, 2018).…”